Rights of women in a live-in relationship

Introduction

A LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIP is a situation in which an unmarried couple cohabitates in the same residence as one another during the course of a long-term relationship that resembles a marriage. This kind of arrangement enables a man and a woman to co-exist in their relationship without getting married. In metropolitan Cities, such kind of union has emerged as a viable choice for marriage.

Women however are frequently the party that feels resentment since they are in such a volatile relationship. continue reading to learn more about the rights of women in live-in relationships.

Women’s rights in a Live-in Relationship

1-Maintenance rights

A woman in a live-in relationship can claim maintenance from her partner if she is unable to support herself or if the relationship breaks down. The statutory right to maintenance is now found in Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (formerly Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, CrPC), and there is no longer any upper ceiling on the amount that may be awarded. It is a common misconception that the Malimath Committee (2003) led to an amendment of Section 125 to widen the definition of “wife” to cover live-in partners — Section 125 has existed since the CrPC of 1973, and although the Malimath Committee only recommended widening “wife” in this way, that amendment was never enacted. Instead, the right of a woman in a live-in relationship to claim maintenance flows from Supreme Court case law (such as Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha, 2010, and the criteria laid down in D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, 2010) and from Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Domestic Violence Act, 2005 also gives women in a live-in relationship the same protection against all forms of abuse as married women.

2- Right to Property

Following the 2005 amendment, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 now secures a woman’s right to ancestral property. Regardless of her marital status, a daughter becomes a coparcener by birth and acquires the same rights in ancestral property as a son. In Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020), the Supreme Court held that these coparcenary rights by birth apply retrospectively, regardless of whether the father was alive on the date of the 2005 amendment. Hence, whether or not a woman is married or living with someone, she inherits a right in her parent’s ancestral property by birth, while property she has acquired on her own remains her self-acquired property, which she is free to dispose of by her will.

3-Children’s Inheritance Rights

The Supreme Court of India (SC) has ruled that a couple who had been cohabiting for a significant amount of time would be deemed to be married and would enjoy all of the rights that go along with it. Children born to cohabiting partners would also be treated as legitimate by the law. Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 confers legitimacy on such children, and the Supreme Court has since held that they are entitled to a share not only in their parents’ self-acquired property but also in the parents’ share of ancestral or coparcenary property (Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan v. Valsan, 2022; Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, 2023).

Even if their own personal laws do not provide for it, children have the right to claim maintenance under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (formerly Section 125 CrPC). The live-in partners still owe it to their children to take care of them even if they are no longer together.

In the earlier case of Bharatha Matha v. R. Vijaya Renganathan, (2010) 11 SCC 483, the Supreme Court had taken the view that a child born of a live-in relationship could inherit the parents’ property but could not claim a share in Hindu ancestral coparcenary property. That position has since been overtaken: in Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan v. Valsan (2022) and the three-judge bench decision in Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun (2023), the Supreme Court held that a child who is legitimate under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is entitled to a share in the parent’s interest in ancestral or coparcenary property as well.

Rights and Legality of Children born from a live-in relationship

Children born from invalid or voidable marriages are granted legal status by Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Section 26 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. While such children were earlier thought to be confined to their parents’ self-acquired assets, the Supreme Court has now clarified that a child who is legitimate under Section 16 is also entitled to a share in the parent’s interest in ancestral or coparcenary property (Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan v. Valsan, 2022; Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, 2023).

In the case of S.P.S. Balasubramaniam v. Suruttayan @ Andali Padayachi, AIR 1994 SC 133 (decided in 1994), children born to a live-in couple were given legal status. The Supreme Court has held that where a man and a woman have lived together for a significant period of time, they are presumed to be married under the presumption of facts now contained in Section 119 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023 (formerly Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872). Their descendants will be recognised as legitimate and hence be eligible to inherit a portion of the family wealth.

In the 2010 case of Bharatha Matha v. R. Vijaya Renganathan, (2010) 11 SCC 483, the Supreme Court addressed the property entitlement of children born from a live-in relationship, ruling that children born inside a live-in relationship are not to be treated as illegitimate provided the relationship lasts for a long enough period of time. As noted above, the entitlement of such children to a share in ancestral or coparcenary property has since been confirmed in Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan v. Valsan (2022) and Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun (2023).